TA9-00230

TA9-00230

The claimants' fear arises from generalized criminality (express kidnappings) and not from a Convention ground, and they failed to prove on the required standard (clear and convincing evidence) that state protection in Mexico is unavailable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-00230
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 96 and section 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Generalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Generalized Risk Nexus to Convention Grounds Person in Need of Protection Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' fear arises for a Convention ground (nexus)
  2. 2 Whether the risk faced is generalized criminality or particularized persecution
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in Mexico and whether claimants exhausted reasonable remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' fear arises from generalized criminality (express kidnappings) and not from a Convention ground, and they failed to prove on the required standard (clear and convincing evidence) that state protection in Mexico is unavailable; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 96 and section 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed; no protection granted